I recently read an interesting article proposing to get rid of the current peer review system: https://www.experimental-history.com/...

The argument was roughly this: for the unfathomable (unpaid) hours spent on peer review, it's not very effective. Too much bad research still gets published and too much good research gets rejected. Science would also not be a weak-link problem but a strong-link problem, i.e., scientific progress would not depend on the quality of our worst research but of that of our best research (which would push through anyway in time). Pretty interesting read, even though I find it difficult to imagine how we would transition to such a system.

As a software engineering researcher, I strongly agree. SE research has studied code comprehension for more than 40 years, but for that amount of time, we know surprisingly little about what makes really high-quality code. We are decent in saying what makes very bad code, though, but beyond extreme cases, it's hard to come to fairly general statements.

Wow, these guys are even more awesome than I thought then...

Maybe they're talking about themselves in 3rd person (dragonfucker)? 🙃

Haha, I was actually joking, I didn't think it's really true. This is hilarious!

That's a great analogy via movie quotes if I've ever seen one! Need to rewatch that movie... :)

Is Google Chrome fighting uBlock country-specific? I use Chrome on Win 10 with uBlock and haven't seen a YouTube ad outside of the mobile app in ages. For me, uBlock never stopped working in Chrome and I watch YouTube videos every 1-2 days.

Ah, that's easy, you just inherit it from your rich parents. See? Problem solved!

Yes, you're correct. OpenAI is often called the highest valued private company in human history.

While I agree with the general notion of this, there are still companies that are considerably worse than others. Choosing the lesser evil is still something that would overall help society and the planet.

I'm confused about this as well. Why is this trial happening before one that would bring criminal charges for the insurrection to lock him up? If he lost such a trial, he would be automatically banned from running, right? Or is the required evidence different for this one and that's why they go with it?

But who would lead the executive branch then and how would you ensure that they are reasonably separated from the legislative branch?

I guess the issue is that, assuming a turnout of 60% for simplicity, the undeserving third category you mention only makes up roughly 30% of eligible voters. Which means 70% of eligible voters are deserving of what's coming to them (according to you). I acknowledge that throwing the whole country into the same bucket is not a fair and helpful simplification, but it's becoming increasingly harder to resist the urge.

I think they are referring to the controversial Dutch tradition of Zwarte Piet (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet).

A few bad things in code for which we have fairly consistent evidence:

• high nesting depth
• meaningless or single-letter variable names
• lots of code duplication
• very inconsistent formatting
• very complicated Boolean conditions with AND and OR
• functions with a lot of parameters

I also greatly enjoyed this one and think it's a really well-made show with great actors. It was also one of the few shows I could watch with my wife with us both really liking it (we have unfortunately very different taste regarding TV shows). We often laughed at very different moments that the other one didn't find super funny but that didn't matter at all. Definitely recommend!

An axiom is a statement that is accepted to be true, usually to serve as a foundation for further arguments. I assume OP meant that NGT would often make general statements without much justification and OP perceived these statements as not nuanced / "true" enough.

I think you might be approaching this in the wrong way. There is no objective right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Life and humans are simply too complex to create simple, objective rules that would be interpreted in exactly the same way by a decent number of humans for a reasonably complex situation. And you don't even have to include ethical dilemmas for that, like deciding whether to shoot down a plane hijacked by terrorists or interrogating a kidnapper via torture.

Nonetheless, many homogeneous groups get to a decent degree of ethical alignment, and asking people for their ethical rules or guidelines is an interesting question to get inspiration and to find out how others try to navigate the complexity of the world. Just don't expect these rules to be objective.

If I remember correctly, this is also one of the leading explanations why the Pennsylvania Dutch are called like that even though they speak German (or a German dialect).